new poll

socrates

Wanted to get an idea - this one keeps coming up and is being causing controversy.

The specific circumstance would be where you had no other option other than repossession.

QTPie

No, rightly or wrongly (or stupidly) I play by the rules...

QT

Mr._H_2

I would have voted "Yes" had I not read your first post.

I would not let out my property without permission if I was facing repossession.

However, I have in the past let out my property without permission from the lender, because I knew that, barring very weird circumstances, the mortgage would continue to be paid to the bank (in an emergency I could borrow the money from my mother). The property was let for six months whilst I lived elsewhere, then I moved back.

If I'd asked the bank's permission to let, they would have granted it but charged 0.5% or 1% more interest to cover their additional "risk". However, as the let was going to be of minimal duration and I knew the mortgage could be covered whether I managed to get a tenant or not, why should I have paid the bank more money for doing absolutely nothing?

On the other hand - if you are being faced with repossession that implies that you cannot afford the mortgage. Getting a tenant might solve the problem in the short term - but what happens with voids? Then you'd have to pay for wherever you've moved too and your mortgage - and you definitely can't afford that. The bank's risk has significantly increased and your financial problems aren't really solved. Seems like a bad move to me.